Except if you look at the data, it absorbed about half of human CO2 emissions *throughout* history, including recent history:

http://theresilientearth.com/?...

So the question still stands - why did CO2 sinks in our environment increase their absorption at the same time we increased our emissions?

It's like you're pouring 10 gallons per second into a tub that has a drain that removes 5 gallons per second, and then when you move to 20 gallons per second, the drain magically increases in size to remove 10 gallons per second.

Something is moderating the size of that drain, and it's not the water coming in...

Also, from the cited report:

http://ozone.unep.org/Assessme...

"Total column ozone declined over most of the globe during the 1980s and early 1990s, by about 2.5% in the global mean, but has remained stable since 2000. There are indications of an increase in global-mean total column ozone over 2000–2012, consistent with model predictions. However, a total column ozone increase that would be attributable to ODS decreases has not yet been observed."

Money quote: "However, a total column ozone increase that would be attributable to ODS decreases has not yet been observed."

http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.go...

The graphs can be seen here:
http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.go...

Whatever effect can be traced to 1987, it looks like a one-time step change, without a definite trend.

Let's be very clear here:

1) oceans are *basic* not acidic. Reducing pH of oceans at this point is *neutralization*, not acidification;

2) ocean pH varies orders of magnitude more than any proposed amount of neutralization:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

"It turns out that far from being a stable pH, spots all over the world are constantly changing. One spot in the ocean varied by an astonishing 1.4 pH units regularly. All our human emissions are projected by models to change the world’s oceans by about 0.3 pH units over the next 90 years, and that’s referred to as “catastrophic”, yet we now know that fish and some calcifying critters adapt naturally to changes far larger than that every year, sometimes in just a month, and in extreme cases, in just a day."

It could be an indication that the compensation effect of the oceans is coming at an end.

How can you possibly assert that as an explanation? Let's assume, for the moment, that the missing sink is the oceans (rather than say, increased plant life, or some other part of the carbon cycle we don't understand) - the moderator of how much CO2 they could absorb every year must be the amount of surface area of the oceans, yet without changing the surface area of the oceans, you're asserting that they magically figured out how to absorb *more* CO2 in later years?

Please, *why* would the oceans in 1980 absorb x CO2 from the atmosphere, but then in 2014, they absorb Y > 10x?

Possible suggestion: Absorption of oceans is driven by ocean temperature, and from say, 1980 - 2014, increasing ocean temps absorbed more CO2 from the atmosphere. So then what regulates ocean temperature? Cloud albedo and solar activity primarily, with maybe some minuscule contribution from underwater vulcanism. Sadly, we've got no model linking cloud albedo to CO2, or solar activity to CO2, much less human CO2.

In any case, the fact that natural CO2 absorption has varied so greatly over the years indicates some other moderator than human CO2 emissions on final global CO2 levels.

Historically, about half of the pollution from human sources has been absorbed by the oceans and by terrestrial plants

Interesting. That means that as human emissions have increased, so have the CO2 sinks....so back when we were emitting 2x, the environment magically knew to absorb 1x, and now that we're emitting 20x, it absorbs 10x.

Here's the question - if the CO2 capacity of our sinks is upwards of 10x today, why did it only absorb 1x when we emitted less?

http://theresilientearth.com/?...

Here's an alternative - CO2 levels are driven by something else besides our emissions, and regardless if we emit more, or emit less, the "set point" will be adapted to, either by more absorption, or less absorption.

Here's the problem (and yes, it's endemic to both parties) - you're a fucking hypocrite.

This kind of story essentially acts as a rorshach test - the typical assessment goes something like this:

1) Something BAD() has been done;
2) Check if the BAD() thing was done by the opposing party;
3) If "Yes", conjure up maximum moral outrage;
4) If "No", downplay the size, scope, or severity of the BAD() thing.

If this was FoxNews checking with the CIA, you'd be outraged.

If this was the LA Times checking with the CIA under Bush, you'd be outraged.

Hell, you speak disparagingly of "the most popular news network" as a mouthpiece of the GOP, but gloss over the fact that the rest of the media is just as much a mouthpiece for the Democrat party! And you don't bat an eye at that!

Fuck all of you party partisans and your silly "rah-rah" team rationalizations. The issue here isn't about parties - the issue here is about the press being in cahoots with our large, powerful, ever expanding, ever intrusive, and fucked up government, under *any* party.

Because of course, every sick person died before the Democrat party came along, right?

I'm sorry, but you Democrat partisans can go hang out in the same hell as the Republican partisans - just leave us freedom loving folk *alone*. Stop trying to tell us who we can and can't marry, how many rounds of ammo we can have in one clip, what dirty words aren't allowed on TV, or how much insurance we have to buy.

Frankly, the best option we have is to never give a party more than one term in office - keep swapping them out, every 4 years (or 6 or 2 for congress critters), and maybe, just maybe, they won't be around long enough to *really* fuck us.

Good catch, I like their visualization tool here: http://extranet.nsidc.org/Nimb...

Unfortunately, I couldn't find any similar visualization for the arctic.

I think the take away from their work shows just how much natural variability there was, even during a regime of significantly less CO2:

“And the Antarctic blew us away,” he said. In 1964, sea ice extent in the Antarctic was the largest ever recorded, according to Nimbus image analysis. Two years later, there was a record low for sea ice in the Antarctic, and in 1969 Nimbus imagery, sea ice appears to have reached its maximum extent earliest on record."

1964 high -> 1966 low -> 2014 above average

Since we have no 60s data regarding volume, I suppose that's an open question, but for antarctic extent to grow from 1966-2014 in the face of ever increasing CO2, points to some significant natural variability that overwhelms whatever influence CO2 might have.

Read the article:

" September 1964 covered about 19.7 million square kilometers—an area slightly larger than the United States and Canada together, and larger than that seen in satellite data from any year between 1972 and 2012."

Today is 2014, and antarctic ice (as shown by their photo), looks nearly *identical* to 2014, even after 50 years.

Do you deny that 2013 and 2014 exist, and that arctic ice has increased to the point that matches their observations in 1964?

Do you also deny that in 1966, there was a record low in ice extent?

"Similar data from another Nimbus satellite reveal a record low coverage of sea ice just 2 years later, the team notes."

Are you willing to take back your poorly backed argument now?

Insulin is not driven by protein in any significant degree, period - gluconeogenesis is orders of magnitude less than the effect of carbohydrate intake.

And, yes, insulin promotes fat accumulation - in fact, it is the most lipogenic hormone in the body.

http://press.endocrine.org/doi...

Re-read the part in your biology textbook that talks about insulin and fat accumulation.

http://books.google.com/books?...

There are essential fatty acids.

There are essential proteins.

There is no such thing as an essential carbohydrate.

Overeating is a tautology - you only decide if someone over ate based on *outcome*, not on *activity*. Two people who eat and exercise the same amount, but one gains weight, and only one is "overeating".

The fact of the matter is that fat accumulation is driven by insulin. Insulin is driven by blood sugar. Blood sugar is driven by carbohydrates.

The Russians could not have known what Obama would or wouldn't eventually do.

You mean, you don't think Obama tipped his hand like this?

http://www.reuters.com/article...

"President Barack Obama was caught on camera on Monday assuring outgoing Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that he will have "more flexibility" to deal with contentious issues like missile defense after the U.S. presidential election.

Obama, during talks in Seoul, urged Moscow to give him "space" until after the November ballot, and Medvedev said he would relay the message to incoming Russian president Vladimir Putin."

Bush was seen on the international stage as crazy. Obama is seen as weak. As Obama's weakness has unfolded over the past 6 years, it's obvious we would've been better off with Sad Grandpa McCain than "we don't have a strategy yet" Obama :)

Obama blames Bush for all kinds of things, even after six years :)

http://www.washingtontimes.com...

He hasn't quite blamed Ukraine on him yet, but give him time :)

As for whether or not the situation would be better, you mentioned Chechnya and Georgia, of which the Chechnyan wars started under Clinton, and Georgia was undermined by Obama's *removal* of sanctions in 2010 despite continued military occupation.

The simple fact of the matter is that the world *was* better with Bush in charge. Obama, not so much :)

Russia pulled out of Georgia, so the sanctions against them should have been lifted, as they were.

Check your facts again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O...

"Occupied territories of Georgia (also known as Russian-occupied territories) are the territories occupied by Russia after the Russo-Georgian War in 2008. They consist of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Twenty percent of Georgia's internationally recognized territory is under Russian military occupation."

And continued, unopposed, for many years under Bush.

So Obama can blame Bush, but Bush can't blame Clinton? :)

I smell a double standard here :)